HOW EUROPE'S GEOGRAPHY SHAPED HISTORY

How Geography shaped the world we live in today.

Hopefully you will learn something in this video :)

REFERENCES:

Diamond, Jared, Guns, Germs and Steel (New Yrok: W. W. Norton, 2005)

Marshall, Tim, Prisoners of Geography: Ten Maps that Tell You Everything You Need to Know about Global Politics (Elliot and Thompson Limited, 2015)

Kagan, Robert, Of Paradise and Power (New York: Random House, 2003)

Bloom, David E. and Sachs, Jeffrey D., 'Geography, Demography, and Economic Growth in Africa', Harvard Institute for International Development, Harvard University (October 1998)

Subscribe for more Creatively eXplained videos!

CREDITS:

All images and video are licensed under Creative Commons or were purchased and licensed for commercial use in this video.

Music written by Creatively eXplained all rights reserved.

© Creatively eXplained all rights reserved, 2019

[stonehorsegaming]

Another geographical advantage that Europe has is that the land mass is relatively small and doesn’t offer a lot of space to flee. This meant that conflicts and disputes were very common. Just look at how many small countries are within Europe. These conflicts meant that the nations had to build up a dedicated military force, they actively trained to be better fighters, with drills, tactics and what not. So when they did encounter none European nations they had an overwhelming advantage.

Geography explains a lot, but is sadly over looked.

[accountforcommenting]

Low population also helped, one of the reasons for the industrial revolution is low population leading to wage increase forcing people to invest in machines, necessity is the mother of all inventions

[Kjellmagneask]

East Asia has the same geographical advantages as Europe.

[joshuacondell]

Europe is a subcontinent, not a continent. The continent is called Eurasia.

[ErikaChristinaGdA]

Oceania saying “Hello” was the death of me 😭💀

[didooscar]

european countries have access to warm seas
russia : them

[ThomasWangenheim]

European climate is so great, that agriculture was developed in the Middle-East - ooops! And European's domesticable animals were so wunderful, that domestication was achieved in China and the Middle-East - So, nice try, Guybrush.
It wasn't until agriculture was pushed forwards by a couple of inventions, so that we could barely make it possible to have a harvest in central Europe comparable to Egypt or Mesopotamia. So - au contraire - it was much harder to get a good crop (from which you also have to feed your animals). It's all about invention, my friend!

[marcv]

It's absurd to say that other parts of the world were stuck in isolation when they had larger populations and more resources than Europe for most of history. Diamond's axes only look plausible on a projection map with basic geography. Using actual climates, distances and geography, they don't make nearly as much sense. Development never happened along any longitudinal axes anyway. Diamond's axes were roundly discredited by others including Tainter, decades ago.

Europe does not have have geographic advantages compared to the rest of the world. Where Europe has mountains, they are claimed to be an advantage. Where other continents have mountains, they are claimed to be a disadvantage. Where Europe has plains, they are claimed to be an advantage. Where other continents have plains they are claimed to be a disadvantage. Where Europe has peninsulas and islands, they are claimed to be an advantage. Where other continents have and are peninsulas and islands, they are claimed to be a disadvantage. Where other continents have large navigable rivers, they are said to be unnavigable simply because the native populations didn't navigate them. Europe was not immune to what we think of as tropical diseases. Malaria and other diseases existed as far north as Britain and Germany. Europeans drained swamps to counter these diseases.

When Europe had a large degree of political unity under Rome, it is deemed an advantage for development. When China has had relative political unity under various dynasties it is deemed a disadvantage to development. When Europe has been politically divided and at war, it is viewed as an advantage for development. When China has been racked by war and division, it is viewed as a hindrance to development. Differing standards are always applied because one has always shown more development than the other.

Chinese rice production was much more productive than European agriculture through most of history because rice just happens to allow much greater harvests for much less work than other grains. It's the reason China stopped cultivating millet in favor of rice thousands of years ago. China being blessed with the geography for rice production has historically been able to maintain a larger population than Europe with a larger elite class being available to innovate for society. This larger population with more elites has generally been the rule for millennia with the exception of the Roman Empire when the Roman population was on par with China. Historically the Middle East from the Levant to Iran also had a larger population than Europe.

The wild counterparts to domestic animals in western Eurasia were no less easy to domesticate than animals anywhere else. Auruchs were still around during the Roman era. The Romans reported them as being some of the most fearsome beasts they had encountered. Cattle were domesticated from the auruch. The British were able to harness the zebra and cross breed them with horses almost as soon as they encountered them, although they were not nearly as suitable as the horse with millennia of selective breeding. Why did Africans never domesticate the zebra, or any number of other African animals that have since been domesticated. The chicken was first domesticated in Viet Nam so East Asia was able to domesticate an animal. East Asia has had access to animals domesticated in the West for over 3000 years. Sub-Saharan Africa has had access to these animals for 2000 years because they were brought there, and survived only as long as the people maintained animal husbandry that was taught to them. There are plenty of more animals that could be domesticated on every continent today if the need arose. Twentieth century Russian scientists domesticated wild foxes, just to see if it could be done. They produced extremely tame and agreeable foxes within a few decades.

Native North Americans never domesticated the turkey, Europeans did. Europeans arriving in Australia farmed the emu, which had never been done. India is naturally blessed with the most productive agricultural land in the world, and has been for millennia. India also has much more land that can be irrigated than Europe. Currently 5 times as much.

The Congo River has two 1, 000 mile stretches of unobstructed navigability, fed by a watershed the size of India. This alone is greater than all European river systems combined. Over 100 years ago, the Belgians put over 100 steam ships on the Congo River. Today the Congo River is no longer used for navigation. Why? There is no good reason. Central Africa and Northeast Africa have huge swaths of highlands with year round temperate climates ideal for a wide variety of agriculture, fertile soil and a lack of disease carrying insects.

Most of the plagues suffered in Europe throughout history originated in Asia and Africa. Africa is full of natural harbors, which is how Europeans managed to maintain safe harbor and go ashore, all along the African coast. The Portuguese sailed 100 miles up the Congo River without hindrance. That's much farther than they would be able to get a caravel up any European river.

Much of Europe has a long winter, which is the equivalent of annual drought as far as food production is concerned. Winters are NOT at all great for agriculture. It's why the Roman Empire relied on Egypt as a breadbasket, and so much of Europe relied on animal husbandry because of short growing seasons, and a lack of ideal cropland. European land was less naturally productive for crops historically. It took centuries of selective breeding and innovations to increase crop yields in Europe.

Europeans have been redrawing their own borders for millennia, to the chagrin of one nation or another. Yet Europe still progressed. Europe was invaded by Muslim culture all the way to France in the west, and Austria in the east with foreign colonial Caliphates imposed on them, yet Europe progressed. The southern coast of Europe was depopulated by Barbary slavers right up through the early modern period.



I could go on with many more examples, but I'll leave it at that.

[matthewbrooks]

Sounds like a bunch of excuses to me. Just one more person trying to put down Europeans and their descendants. Make whatever excuses you'd like to compensate for other peoples lack of growth and advancement through time but there is a lot more to this picture than what you say.

[johndewey]

Your observations contain factual inaccuracies and incorrect conclusions I hope people do not rely on the content of this video for educational purposes. Please do more research.

[polarequatorial]

Your title slide is incorrect.
True, Europe had geographic advantages such as a temperate climate.
I fail to see how this is “unfair” however.

[mattpliska]

Artificial borders, I mean I get what yor saying but all borders are inherently artificial. Artifical in the sense of disregarding the demographics of the region certainly isnt new. The ottomans didnt stop expansion once they exhausted all the turkish populated regions they didnt stop. Many empires have split lands without regarding demographics. The latin Roman's and iranian parthians split the semitic middle east between them for 800 years! Sykes picot isnt nearly as unique or even as much of a turning point as people point to.

[madraven]

Ha, at 7:44 the video satellite view of Earth is reversed. It's Eastern Canada (Gaspé peninsula and Baie-des-Chaleur) but in reverse.

[garrettholtz]

Good analysis. Germs are important, and they do partially explain why Europeans wiped out natives in the New World. But they don't explain why Europeans were more advanced in the first place. Perhaps the most important reasons are government and capitalism. The free market, unencumbered by religious fundamentalism (looking at you, Middle East), propelled the rise of technology and exploration.

[graterdeddly]

Those who need to explain away the current Euro-American dominance of the world find comfort in this kind of video since it gives a simple answer, one that does not involve any sort of real analysis. The simplistic answer? Why it is all due to "luck" -- otherwise known as geography. To say "they were just born in the right place" simplistic and wrong on its face.

If the European climate were so spectacular, then it doesn't make any sense that civilization began not Great Britain or Germany or Italy, but in Mesopotamia and Egypt and India and China. If the European climate allowed for greater food production, then why did the agricultural revolution begin somewhere in the Middle East, in particular with the Natufians (around today's Lebanon). If greater food production leading to greater population density were the big deal, then China and India would be the dominant powers today, since they have the largest populations (and have for millennia).

The real answer lies in the uniqueness of European development -- it has the benefited from the hard work done by the superior peoples that created its foundation. This phenomenon naturally begins with the Greeks (who were influenced by the Egyptians, but were themselves the most inventive people in history). The Romans came next and added their law and engineering skills, plus their literature and poetry. To this was added Judeo-Christian influences, and then combined with Celtic and Germanic individualism and restlessness. These all came together to create Western Civilization, and it developed rationalism, democracy, logic, art, philosophy, The Italian Renaissance, The Enlightenment, and much, much else, all through genius and effort. It isn't that other cultures did not have these things, but they did not excel in them quite to the degree that Europe did -- and that is the shorthand reason Europe's advantages were all self-made.

Attempting to explain it all away as a matter of luck may make some people feel better, but it has nothing to do with history.

[raphlvlogs]

geography is closely related to many other subjects in the world.

[tohe]

Bollocks, the Europeans faced a harsher world in northern Europe. They learned how to adapt to, and use recourses and not expecting an easy life. They got used to a tougher climate, less animals, less naturally growing plants. They could not flee away from deceases or poverty but had to face it. Hence European advantages came out of pagan beliefs were people had to fend for themselves. Geography indeed was important for the development. Not all lived in the South keeping slaves and harems. War and paganism shaped European landscape, not fucking Christianity, which almost destroyed Europe. He makes a latitude comparison which is stupid. Below zero degrees put bugs in a coma, but you have to live in small buildings to conserve heat, and bugs love that.

[jasonbeattie]

Europes advantages came from their Judeo-Christian heritage which valued truth and the individual. The pursuit of truth eventually led to the enlightenment and then formulation of the sciences. The respect for the individual over the group identity led eventually to democracy and capitalism. This created the conditions which led to the industrial revolution which propelled Britain to become the preeminent trading and military power in the 19th century before passing the baton to USA in the 20th century. Geographical conditions were also helpful but for much of history Britain and Europe was a very hard place to survive.

[jacques]

some regions on earth have conditions way more favorable for the developpment of civilisation. Europe has an interesting climate, but not the best possible.
the book gun germs and steel is also highly debated and criticised. especially the hypothesis regarding continental axis which is approximative.
I get that its the trend to downplay the accomplishments of the West. Probably because if we say that "it wasnt all luck", then for some people it would translate to "we are superior".
I think its unfair for you to say that europe had an unfair advange. But still thank you for your work.

[carlosv]

Who played Civilization.
Congo player should have settled closer to a dank river